are doing it again in Texas and the Democrats are not amused. (Gerrymandering, that is.) One could be forgiven for thinking the gerrymander is owned by the Republican Party. The careful reader will discover that there is usually a “payback” on the part of Republicans for Democrat-favored gerrymandering or vice versa. If the Beeb really wants to do justice to this topic, let them look at how the GOP and Dems have collaborated in California, where it’s all quite predictable. Or, just have Michael Barone explain it.
Those mean Republicans
Bookmark the permalink.
Both parties do this, everywhere. In Texas, there had been a long-standing agreement to do this only once every ten years (or something). But this was an agreement by the Democrats to the Democrats, seeing as how they have had power in the state legislature for well over a century.
When the Republicans finally gained the majority, they broke the redistricting agreement (figuring, I guess, that they’d never have the opportunity again). This led to the pathetic yet entertaining spectacle of Texas Democratic legislators fleeing the state — once to (oh, the humanity!) Oklahoma, once to New Mexico — in order to prevent a quorum being formed.
If they stay in Texas, the Rangers (not the ball team) can drag ’em back, if they can find them. But the Rangers can’t touch them out of state. Next they’ll be fleeing to Mexico, and that’ll be a fine how-do-you-do. Of course, maybe Fox will decide to keep them. That’s something to hope for, I guess.
It just seemed to be pandering to the base- the BBC’s anti-Bush base, that is.
Fine article by Gerard Baker, “The new front in the War on Terror must be against the cynics of the Left”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-1308449,00.html
When Afghan vote in doubt “They must have been hugging themselves in the salons of Brussels and Paris,in the editorial offices of Shepherds Bush, Gray’s Inn Rd & Berkeley and Harvard. It the best possible outcome for the Bush and Blair-haters, eager to expose the folly of the War on Terror.”
And
“This is without doubt the most insidious battle that now has to be fought in the war against terrorism. Not the one against the terrorists, Baathists, jihadis, Taleban and Wahhabis. Nor even against the corrupt and repressive obscenities of governments in Saudi, Egypt or elsewhere. It is the fight here at home — against the constant insipid blathering of those for whom nothing their nation does can ever be deemed just, unless it is ratified by the freedom-loving members of the United Nations.”
Above quotes hacked a bit to get to character limit. Hope Baker’s thoughts clear. Read whole article if you can,
I broadly agree, but there’s a danger of brushing aside as ‘cynicism’ justifiable concerns about tactics and planning.
Iraq would be a better place now if in the midst of dismissing all criticism as the weasel words of those failing to support the forces of good against evil, somebody had remembered to come up with a contingency plan should US occupation not be met by undying gratitude.
Agreed. The lack of planning by the Pentagon and the DoD was inexcusable.
It’s pretty clear that they have been making it up as they go along as far as post-invasion policy is concerned.
There was clearly alot of hubris within the Bush Admin in the lead up to war, and much of the blame lies with Rummy, the CIA, and the civilian staff who have infected the Pentagon in recent years (especially during the Clinton era).
And, as ever (as ever!) it’s the troops who pay the price for the hubris of the pen-pushers and the opportunism of the media elite.
Additional: I am sure I am not the only one to have noticed that the likes of The Independent, ever so eager to send troops into Darfur, have not suggested an exit strategy and a means of defeating the Janjaweed, who are not disimilar to the Iraq insurgents in terms of guerilla tactics.
In order to stop the Janjaweed, we would almost certainly have to kill civilians in the process, a little fact which the Guardian, BBC, and Indy conveniently gloss over.
Ive had it with the BBC, whos up for starting to oraginse protests and talking to MPs and the like, today after watching news 24 for the whole of today and this evening my blood is nearly boiling,nothing but leftist propaganda spewing out of them, Please someone get back to me on this.I am serious about protests outside the BBC Tv centres. waiting for help!
OT.
People being blown up across the world is “a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians”,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1327904,00.html
Adam Curtis is trading on his “reputation” which is usually media code for “my ego’s got so big I can say anything and you’ll believe it.”
Shop around and you’ll find an ‘expert’ to support whatever conclusion you want to push.
Time to apply some scrutiny.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3749862.stm
“Personal attacks
Some analysts have predicted President Bush would use the final phase of the campaign to step up stinging personal attacks on his rival, our correspondent says.
There were signs of this, too, as he repeatedly attacked Senator Kerry’s voting record and tried to present him as an ultra-liberal, she says.
He attacked Mr Kerry’s record on taxes – trying to fuel voter concern they would face a heavy tax burden under the Democrats.”
In the minds of liberals/leftists (BBC news personnel), pointing out the political aspects of an opponent is making ‘stinging personal attacks’. Apparently, this only applies from right to left.
If I wanted to make a personal attack on the BBC’s Jill McGivering I wouldn’t bother with pointing out her journalistic failings; I’d just call her a silly bitch.
.
Good read in Sunday Times from a Dem for Bush
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2766-1312869,00.html
Includes “Kerry is giving Iraqi insurgents — who, true to their form under Saddam, relish killing their own people most of all — every reason to step up their attacks in the hope of sabotaging their own elections and replacing Bush in the White House. It is the behaviour of a politician with more ambition than conscience.”
This is true also of the BBC – both in opposing Bush & all coalition efforts in Iraq.
C.Hawley reports on Falluja. She gives every indication of believing locals’ reports that US wrong in claiming al-Zarqawi’s presence in city.
She points out that Falluja’s resistance to US is from “nationalist” insurgents. The BBC have no problem in regarding these non-democratic forces as being as legitimate as those seeking to arrange the Jan elections.
PJF
It appears that another insurgent stealth attack has taken place, and the paragraph you quoted above was blasted into the so called bbc editors’ Guantanamo.
All the same, Kerry evoking the memory of Christopher Reeve doesn’t evoke any snide comments from ‘our correspondent’.(commented on here.)
help people, why is no one bothered enough to do something about these blatent liars, hell i’m so mad someone give me an AK-47 and i’d go on a killing spree through thier bloody buildings, see if they termed me as a ‘militant’ after too. Help guys i am really getting to the end of my tether with them and need to try and oraginse legitamate ways to dispose of them! thanks.
Jon
The only way to deal with these people is if sufficient numbers of the public refuse to buy a TV licence. Not watching TV is no great deal and you have a lot more time to engage in more rewarding pursuits. I do not believe the politicians are really interested in abolishing the licence. The one who may have been, IDS, was removed after allegations were made against him by Crick (A sometime employee of the BBC). Crick was subsequently censured by a parliamentary committee. Log onto bbcresistance
I clarify, in fairness, that I believe the allegations made by Crick, was a help to those in the Conservative Party who wanted to remove him (IDS) and that Crick was not directly responsible, but contributed.
The piece I pointed to has indeed been altered – and they changed the ‘last updated’ time stamp too.
Maybe we’re making a difference?
The original is still available via the Google cache as of 2330hrs 16th Oct. I did a screen capture of that just for keepsakes.
.
Here is another stealth edit test:
Kevin Anderson’s pseudo-blog…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3749790.stm
(Sunday, 17 October, 2004, 23:13 GMT 00:13 UK)
…Discusses the CNN Crossfire programme. Despite even checking the web site of The Daily Show, hosted by Crossfire guest Jon Stewart, Kevin manages to refer to Jon as John all the way through.
Jon S.
Judging by your spelling skills I’d suggest that CBeebies is the best channel out there for people of your intellectual capacity.
The news might be a bit advanced.
Perhaps comments here are noticed and acted on, but on the other hand perhaps mistakes like the “personal attacks” stuff above are actually spotted internally. A bizarre suggestion, I know, and not quite in keeping with the theory the staffing consists solely of dedicated left-wing revolutionaries hell bent on pumping out foul propaganda…
Re PJF’s “Personal attacks” item
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3749862.stm
“Mr Bush also announced that he had signed into law a bill by which the US the (sic)state department would rate countries annually on the way they treated Jews.
“We will make sure that the ancient impulse of anti-Semitism never finds a home in the modern world,” he said.
Florida, with its large Jewish population, is among so-called “swing states” expected to prove crucial to the result on 2 November – as is Ohio.”
Obviously a Bush election ploy!
BUT
http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/13/wus13.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/13/ixworld.html
This initiative originated in Congress against the views of the adminstration
“Congress overruled strong opposition from diplomats at the State Department”
by
“Tom Lantos, a California Democrat and Holocaust survivor who was one of the sponsors”
Spin, spin, spin BBC.
Re: Stealth Edit…
The BBC passes the test! The corrected spelling of Jon Stewart’s name now has a “Monday, 18 October, 2004, 09:15 GMT 10:15 UK” time stamp.
Michael Gill,
Now all they need is an audit trail for their “corrections”…
No postings for a week?
Have you all finally given up?
Anonymous – have you refreshed your browser?